The newspaper said no military strike was imminent. But it quoted unnamed U.S. officials as saying Bush had decided that Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs pose too great a threat to U.S. national security for Saddam to remain.

``This is not an argument about whether to get rid of Saddam Hussein. That debate is over. This is how you do it,'' the Inquirer quoted a senior Bush administration official as saying.

The newspaper said the White House was determined to act even if U.S. allies do not help, and is now waiting for government agencies to come up with a combination of military, diplomatic and covert plans aimed at achieving Saddam's ouster.

Escalating U.S. rhetoric on Iraq has alarmed Russia and America's European allies in recent weeks, while causing concern among experts about the political and human costs of a lengthy U.S. military campaign in the Middle East.

But the Inquirer said the CIA recently presented Bush with a plan to destabilize Saddam's well-entrenched regime in Baghdad, through a massive covert action campaign, sabotage, information warfare and significantly more aggressive bombing of the so-called no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq.

The president was reportedly enthusiastic, and although it could not be determined whether he gave final approval for the plan, the CIA has begun assigning officers to the task, the newspaper reported.

Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) is also expected to tell Middle East leaders about U.S. intentions to get rid of Saddam during a tour of 11 Middle Eastern nations next month, the Inquirer said.

``He's not going to beg for support,'' a senior official was quoted as saying. ``He's going to inform them that the president's decision has been made and will be carried out, and if they want some input into how and when it's carried out, now's the time for them to speak up.''

Cakewalk in Iraq, Washington Post

Cakewalk In Iraq

By Ken Adelman

Even before President Bush had placed Iraq on his "axis of evil," dire warnings were being sounded about the danger of acting against Saddam Hussein's regime.

Two knowledgeable Brookings Institution analysts, Philip H. Gordon and Michael E. O'Hanlon, concluded that the United States would "almost surely" need "at least 100,000 to 200,000" ground forces [op-ed, Dec. 26, 2001]. Worse: "Historical precedents from Panama to Somalia to the Arab-Israeli wars suggest that . . . the United States could lose thousands of troops in the process."

I agree that taking down Hussein would differ from taking down the Taliban. And no one favors "a casual march to war." This is serious business, to be treated seriously.

In fact, we took it seriously the last time such fear-mongering was heard from military analysts -- when we considered war against Iraq 11 years ago. Edward N. Luttwak cautioned on the eve of Desert Storm: "All those precision weapons and gadgets and gizmos and stealth fighters . . . are not going to make it possible to re-conquer Kuwait without many thousands of casualties." As it happened, our gizmos worked wonders. Luttwak's estimate of casualties was off by "many thousands," just as the current estimates are likely to be.

I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps.

Gordon and O'Hanlon mention today's "400,000 active-duty troops in the Iraqi military" and especially the "100,000 in Saddam's more reliable Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard," which "would probably fight hard against the United States -- just as they did a decade ago during Desert Storm." Somehow I missed that. I do remember a gaggle of Iraqi troops attempting to surrender to an Italian film crew. The bulk of the vaunted Republican Guard either hunkered down or was held back from battle.

Today Iraqi forces are much weaker. Saddam's army is one-third its size then, in both manpower and number of divisions. It still relies on obsolete Soviet tanks, which military analyst Eliot Cohen calls "death traps." The Iraqi air force, never much, is half its former size.

Iraqi forces have received scant spare parts and no weapons upgrades. They have undertaken little operational training since Desert Storm.

Meanwhile, American power is much fiercer. The advent of precision bombing and battlefield intelligence has dramatically spiked U.S. military prowess. The gizmos of Desert Storm were 90-plus percent dumb bombs. Against the Taliban, more than 80 percent were smart bombs. Unmanned Predators equipped with Hellfire missiles and Global Hawk intelligence gathering did not exist during the first Iraqi campaign.

In 1991 we engaged a grand international coalition because we lacked a domestic coalition. Virtually the entire Democratic leadership stood against that President Bush. The public, too, was divided. This President Bush does not need to amass rinky-dink nations as "coalition partners" to convince the Washington establishment that we're right. Americans of all parties now know we must wage a total war on terrorism.

Hussein constitutes the number one threat against American security and civilization. Unlike Osama bin Laden, he has billions of dollars in government funds, scores of government research labs working feverishly on weapons of mass destruction -- and just as deep a hatred of America and civilized free societies.

Once President Bush clearly announces that our objective is to rid Iraq of Hussein, and our unshakable determination to do whatever it takes to win, defections from the Iraqi army may come even faster than a decade ago.

Gordon and O'Hanlon say we must not "assume that Hussein will quickly fall." I think that's just what is likely to happen. How would it be accomplished? By knocking out all his headquarters, communications, air defenses and fixed military facilities through precision bombing. By establishing military "no-drive zones" wherever Iraqi forces try to move. By arming the Kurds in the north, Shiites in the south and his many opponents everywhere. By using U.S. special forces and some U.S. ground forces with protective gear against chemical and biological weapons. By stationing theater missile defenses, to guard against any Iraqi Scuds still in existence. And by announcing loudly that any Iraqi, of any rank, who handles Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, in any form, will be severely punished after the war.

Measured by any cost-benefit analysis, such an operation would constitute the greatest victory in America's war on terrorism.

I had to look that one up I'm afraid
rinĚky-dink
PRONUNCIATION: rngk-dngk
ADJECTIVE: 1. Slang Old-fashioned; worn-out. 2. Insignificant; unimportant. 3. Of cheap or poor quality; makeshift.
NOUN: One that is regarded as old-fashioned, worn-out, insignificant, or cheap in quality.
ETYMOLOGY: Origin unknown.

The Soviet Union must have constituted a greater threat to American security than Hassan will ever be. Yet nobody proposed taking out their leadership. Perhaps having rinky-dink opponents is a better bet than rinky-dink allies.
Again, riding roughshod over international treaty obligations, this time the UN charter, seems in order to the White House and the methods of destabilising proposed constitute a hostile act against a sovereign nation. I'm no fan of Hassan, but a trifle uneasy about where this train of logic could all end. From what I've seen, the European democracies border on the heresy of socialism. Where abouts are we on the hit list? After all Britain and France have nuclear weapons, long range delivery systems and research programmes into (defensive?) chemical and biological warfare.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with several of your points Colonel.
While they are certainly equiped with more technilogically sophisticated weapons today, our armed forces in both manpower and TO&E are down by nearly 36% from 1990 levels.
While our SOCOM and various SOGs are clearly well trained and equipped, they are at the lowest levels of manpower since Greneda. They are Senior NCO heavy as well.
Also, I may be mistaken, but didn't only two members of the senate vote against U.S. involvement in the Gulf? If so, that hardly sounds like a lack of cohesiveness in America.
Also remember, The U.S is no longer as well equipped to fight a tank war as we were in 1990. Back then we enjoyed such an advantage because we had be waiting for thirty years for the Russian hoards to pile thru the Fulda Gap with 38,000 T-72s and T-80s. (10th Special Forces group! Hooyaa!) Sorry.
Also, in the Gulf, we had seven month to study the enemy positions,and pre-target them. We had a luxurious amount of time for the seven "Ps". Not so this time.
While I have no doubt that The U.S. forces would prevail, and at much lower casualty rates than analysts predict, You should never under-estimate your enemy. Better to be over prepared and pleasently surprised.

I think we might be better served if we could rescind president Ford's Executive order 12333.

Not my points. If you look closely, it is an article by Ken Adelman. Don't shoot the messenger!

As for the rinky-dink comment, I can tell you that aside from the UK, the total combat power presented by the other nations that Leccyflyer listed was....yes....rinky-dink. Same thing applies to total numbers in NATO. That is a simple statement of raw numbers.

For Martin Richards...as I have quoted before from my favorite U.S. TV show "The West Wing" (which means you may not get the context), "They will like us when we win".

I like to think I've made quite a few virtual friends from that side of the pond in the past twelve months that I've been posting here, so I really don't want this to upset anyone. It should not be taken as "getting at" the USA, it is about attitudes and policies, not individuals.

That said, the "rinky-dink" comment in the original article and the mindset behind it is exactly the sort of thing that results in the unpopularity of US policy abroad. In the aftermath of September 11th, amidst all of the (justified in many cases) sabre rattling, the question was also asked ".....but why would they hate us so much?".

If that commentator is representative of US opinion and that opinion is that a substantial number of the countries in the world (including the USA's allies and trading partners) are insignificant, unimportant, cheap, poor quality, outdated and makeshift then the arrogance that is perceived in that attitude might go some way to explaining that question.

Absolutely no problem with your comment. And I would like to think that I also have made a few virtual friends in "blighty olde" as well.

Having said that, some comments from the UK and the continent drive us nuts as well. Things like the UK tabloids hammering the U.S. for Cuba early on...Jack Straw, etc...the French Foreign Minister questioning policies....you get the drift.

The average guy in the U.S., in my opinion, laughs at anything French, especially their military and foreign policy. Most of us don't care what people from Yurrup think anyway.

As for the arrogant part, I think we inherited that from England! I think I told you this before, but a UK buddy of mine, when asked if he spoke any foreign languages, responded, "I don't have to....I am British.".

Before we consider "taking out" Sudaam, we'd better give it a great deal of thought................OK, when can we get started?

It's about time we complete what should have been done 10 years ago. George Jr. will hopefully finish the job George Sr. failed to.

Quote:

Originally posted by martin richards
constitute a hostile act against a sovereign nation.

martin: Sovereign Nation? I'm not even sure I know what that means. Sadaam Hussein is a sadistic madman. Iran's possesion of chemical and biological weapons is well documented. Terrorists (and Sadaam IS and CONDONES terrorists) cannot be allowed to have easy access to weapons of mass destruction.
Or should we wait until he uses them first?
As I said above, IMO this is LONG overdue.

question: Why??
Bush senior backed him to power over a democratically elected government.
Then gave him a green light for Kuwait before changing policies 180 in a week.

You really think Iraq is going to invade the US.
Or do you think only the US should be able to have weapons. The world would be much nicer if the US and Britain stopped developing and then selling chemical and bio weapons. - where did the anthrax come from??

Call it like it is guys, don't fool yourselves. It's ALL ABOUT OIL.

Strange how US enemies are always firing back with US made weapons.

Damn with no Northern Alliance or Western Allies something new is going to happen..
- Your going to have to do your own fighting.
(probably very heroically from a safe distance)

Should change that to rest of the world.
In the US there is a silent media blanket on anything that happens overseas anyway, so it's not so much of a surprise that attitudes like that prevail.
Go Rambo!!
Stick your head in the sand and wave that flag.
You must be one of those hearty types that really thinks the rest of the world just wants to be American. There are many countries and governments around the world that are actually nice places to live and don't suffer the effects of a govenment overrun by big business.

Most of the rest of the world see's no need for a bush/blair New World Order, that stuff smells like Germany 1930's style

I'd suggest you provide references to support your outlandish statements because they are not based on facts.
Anthrax wasn't "developed" by the U.S. It is a NATURALLY occuring bacteria. It has NEVER been used by the U.S. for biological warfare. It is used in several laboratories around the world to develop vaccines against it's devastating effects, hopefully before some lunatic poisons millions of people.
The U.S. & Britain do not "develop and sell" chemical and bio weapons. Where did you ever get such an idea?
No, I don't think Iraq is going to "invade" the U.S. I do feel there is a threat of someone attacking us with a biological "weapon".

Yes, you have a right to an opinion. It's pointless if it's nothing more than empty statements.

Originally posted by leccyflyer That said, the "rinky-dink" comment in the original article and the mindset behind it is exactly the sort of thing that results in the unpopularity of US policy abroad.

Well then we are quite stuck, aren't we?

How do you propose that we, as a group of hundreds of millions of people, begin to address this problem? Prevent statements like this from being made? Stop them from being spread on internet discussion forums?

As long as you are ready to accept individual viewpoints as generally "American" you are going to be able to find fault. We are a diverse group of individuals that are incapable of consensus on any issue. To judge us as a whole is to ignore the very thing that makes us American.

Originally posted by iankraus
[B}You must be one of those hearty types that really thinks the rest of the world just wants to be American. [/B]

Nope, I am one of those hearty types that just finished 20 years serving in the armed services. I am also one of those hearty types that set foot into some of the most god-forsaken sh*tholes on the planet in defense of your right to say what you are saying. I am also one of those hearty types that has served in every clime and place, came home, and understood that, although we have many flaws in the U.S., it is still the best country in the world.